Sunday, January 13, 2008

Charlie Wilson's War: Flawed Man's Journey

I saw Charlie Wilson's War last night and I was moderately surprised. Since it's a Mike Nichols film (Nichols has yet to disappoint me), I had hidden hopes for it.

Other than the sex, drugs, and war motif, Nichols features something else: Philip Seymour Hoffman. Hoffman plays a CIA operative named Gust Avrakotos and he steals every scene in which he finds himself. There are few roles in which Hoffman does not manage to shine; this is not one of them. His screen dynamics with Tom Hanks et al., were appealing and the fast-paced dialog between the two oozed humor and intelligence. Hoffman is the kind of actor who makes all in his presence look bearable, including Julia Roberts. Overall, I would say Charlie Wilson's War delivers. Here are some quotes I remember from last night's viewing:

1) Can we just take a moment to reflect on all of the ways that you are a douche bag?

2)You know you've reached rock bottom when you're told you have character flaws by a man who hanged his predecessor in a military coup.

I can think of plenty other ways in which one could unwisely spend two hours. Based on the quotes alone, it sounds like an ok film to watch. So, whether I find the post non-committal or whatever, that's reason enough for me to decide to go see it.How's that, Dave?

Dave:Less non-committal? I'm not entirely sure I understand the question but as Becca points out, there are different things that make a text worth a read. In my mind, Charlie W.'s War is no 'Closer' or 'The Graduate.' That Nichols has done better work in the past is obvious to me. So, I am not recommending the film on account of its high cinematic value. I'm recommending it on account of Hoffman's playing. And Sorkin's writing isn't that bad either. It's a relevant film, yes. And I try to reward relevance with my attention. Is this a less non-committal answer?

Yes, hence, [dave, this could also be targeting one of your questions, perhaps?] the lack of focus on a 'reading' of the film and its content but rather of its form, ie., Hoffman's playing.

It did feel more like hero-worship and while Hanks generally seems to be in roles that worship the hero, albeit in this case a somewhat likable, fallible hero, the lines could have been sharper and less emotionalized? Yes, on the form,Not so much on content....

i agree with the hoffman stealing the show idea. my mother and i discussed that exact sentiment after viewing the film for my grandmother's birthday last month. he really sold that film for me.

as for this line, "Can we just take a moment to reflect on all of the ways that you are a douche bag?" i was a little disappointed by this line because i don't think "douchebag" was a commonly used insult at the time. i meant to research that, actually, but i forgot. thanks for reminding me. if i find anything out about it, i'll post again. i just don't like it when period pieces (yes the 80's are now a period in my book) use non-period language, references, props, etc...

Douche bag, or simply douche, is considered to be a pejorative term in Australia, the United States, Canada and New Zealand. The slang usage of the term dates back to the 1960s.[6] The metaphor of identifying a person as a douche is intended to associate a variety of negative qualities, specifically arrogance and malice.[7]